Menu consistency across software

Despite having similar interfaces, there are still some aspects which are applied differently.

For example, if I add an image to Gigapixel–and want to remove it–I click a small ‘minus’ icon at the right hand side of the file configuration information. (the bottom where it shows what settings you have specified.) If I add an image to Denoise–and want to remove it–I need to click an ‘X’ in the same location.

In Gigapixel, it will then prompt, “:warning: Images not saved”, and offer me buttons that say, “Close Without Saving”, “Cancel”, and “Save”.

Alternately, in Denoise, it will then prompt, "Images not saved :warning: ", and offer me buttons that say, “:heavy_check_mark: Yes”, “:x: No”, and “:x: Cancel”.

While the three options in both programs do the same thing, they are placed and marked in different ways in each program. This could lead to accidental errors with users who expect an option to be in a certain place. (Although I own all of your programs, I am just using these two programs for an example.)

Suggestion: Review the file handling process in all programs, and adopt a standardized format that can can be used as a template across all programs. This will provide consistency, as well as simplify coding and debugging of programs in future.

You could even take this further by developing an interface template that is used for all of your programs, which then gives you only ONE set of code to modify if you make changes to the program interface, instead of changing each program individually based on its unique code.

The latest versions of Denoise, Sharpen and Mask already work in exactly the way you describe above for Gigapixel when closing an unsaved image.

1 Like

Thanks for the information. I just purchased the full suite of your software, so I have been busy installing them all. I look forward to exploring the full features of all Topaz Labs programs. :slight_smile:

or better yet, dont have that many semi full products, its 2020 and most of these adjustments are interconnected or even overlap its features. It really feels like they split up the functions just to get more money out of customers or to confused them. Workflow isnt very efficient as we have to try different software and its features to see which works best in any given scenarios. and if you want to have them under one roof you have to buy yet another software that combine them. It is quite a terrible experience. I have them all and have lots of similar icons on my desktop. Coded tidying up would be nice.

Actually, I think a case can be made for doing it the way they have. I don’t think they have split them up, I think they do it this way since they can focus on doing ONE THING very well. There are loads of programs that claim to do it all… but as the saying goes, “Jack of all trades, master of none.”

I will say it would be nice if they could integrate all of their programs into a single shell program–with these modules as add-ons. But that will take a lot of coding, and so if I have to choose between having better individual programs, or a single mediocre program, I choose the former.

As a former professional beta tester (I worked for a decade as a beta tester in the games development wing of Microsoft) I can say that there are a lot of things that seem simple on the outside that are not so simple on the inside. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like